## Contents

| Section | Title | Page | |-----------|------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Section 1 | Background and approach | 3 | | Section 2 | Context | 9 | | Section 3 | Understanding the problem | 16 | | Section 4 | Experience of children and young people | 34 | | Section 5 | Problem statements | 40 | | Section 6 | Engagement | 43 | | Section 7 | Next steps | 47 | Section 1

Background and approach Background What is London Ventures?

London Ventures is a partnership between London Councils, the membership organisation for the 33 local authorities in London, and EY, a leading professional services firm, and overseen by the Capital Ambition Board. Our vision is to actively pioneer innovation to drive sustainable change and transformation across the public sector, by providing:

“Opportunities for local authorities to access innovation and transformation that will improve their effectiveness and efficiency while ultimately delivering improvements in outcomes for London’s citizens, communities and businesses”

We achieve this by creating collaboration between innovative companies, charities, funders, and all 33 London’s local authorities. Our programme considers the challenges of changing and growing customer demands alongside reduced financial budgets. We facilitate the approach to understand how innovation can develop new solutions in this environment, to ultimately deliver better outcomes from the £9 billion spent on the procurement of local public services across London every year.

Our approach is designed to understand the whole landscape of the challenge; identifying opportunities where the programme can provide additional capacity to develop concepts and complement existing initiatives by highlighting best practice and scaling up good solutions.

Our role:

- **We help support local authorities to get the best value offer with partners**
- **We provide support to nurture initiatives that tackle specific issues that local authorities are facing**
- **We have strategic relationships with local authorities who can sponsor projects and initiatives**
- **We have a trusted brand in the local authority market, through the programme LV will provide endorsement and access to the market**
- **We are committed to delivering better outcomes for local authorities and Londoners through innovation** Background How does London Ventures work?

London Ventures provides additional resources and capacity to initiatives to support local government in London. To shine a light on best practice, to support initiatives already in train, to provide resources to facilitate wider discussions and bring people together to source new solutions. Our challenge panel are in place to help guide our thinking and act as a critical friend. Their mixture of experience and innovative thinking provides insight into the sector to ultimately produce the best possible solutions. The diagram below provides a high level overview as to how London Ventures operates.

Targeted Solutions Our innovations support some of the sectors biggest challenges, for example easing the pressures of homelessness and temporary accommodation.

- Early identification of those at risk of homelessness
- ‘Transition insurance’ to reduce the upfront costs of living in the private rented sector
- Modular temporary accommodation on non-permanent sites
- London-wide temporary accommodation platform

Capital Ambition Board (CAB) The cross-party governance board comprises five elected members who are advised by three Chief Executives, one Finance Director, the GLA, and the LGA. CAB oversees the work carried out by LV and provides the strategic direction for the programme.

London Ventures Targeted ventures – we co-design with local authorities new and innovative solutions to some of the biggest strategic issues faced by London local government e.g. homelessness and children & families.

General Ventures - we work with local authorities and our partners to identify implementation opportunities to achieve savings for local government and deliver better outcomes for Londoners.

Local Authorities We work with local authorities across London and beyond who are interested in sponsoring the identification, development and implementation of new solutions through our targeted ventures work, as well as through implementing our market-ready partner offers.

Venture Partners Our Venture Partners provide innovative market-ready solutions to support local authorities address a range of challenges faced by the sector.

External Stakeholders We engage with a range of third and private sector organisations who help the programme understand the complexities of our strategic issues, and the identification and development of solutions to support the public sector. Our approach What is the London Ventures methodology?

We have developed a design centred, issue-led approach to identifying innovative solutions to some of London’s biggest societal issues. London Ventures have already tested this approach on our first cycle for the challenge of homelessness and temporary accommodation. This cycle led to the build and launch of four innovative solutions, more information on this work can be found here.

Choose a priority area

**Timelines:**

- Nov 17 – Mar 18
- Phase 1: Apr 18 – Jun 18
- Phase 2: Jul 18 – Sep 18
- Phase 3: Oct 18 – Feb 19
- Phase 4: Mar 19 – …

**Approach:**

- Initial engagement & mobilisation
- Understand the problem
- Find the solution
- Develop the solution
- Build and Launch

**Engagement**

- Challenge Panel
- Hackathon
- Concept portfolio
- Crocodiles Den
- Dragons’ Den

**Improve outcomes in the priority area**

**Support the delivery of concepts**

**Phase to develop the prototypes and begin implementation for market ready offers.**

**Prepare commercial offers with local authorities**

**Choose a priority area**

**Develop our understanding of the current challenges and root causes of the chosen theme.**

**Understand what is already happening in the sector and how our ‘targeted venture programme’ can enable sector initiatives that are solving challenges within London.**

**Bring together subject matter experts who understand the problem and can ‘hack’ together to find a solution.**

**Nurture sector based initiatives and market ready solutions and those in development.**

**Incubate and develop the solutions into prototypes/designs/pilots. The programme will create a space for collaboration and joint working.**

**Or ‘fast track’ developed solutions to our venture portfolio.** Our approach Why are we focusing on children and families?

Through the London Ventures programme we are continuously engaging with London local government. As a result of these conversations with key stakeholders across the public and third sectors, it became clear children’s services are facing increasing pressure, both financially and in terms of the level of demand. Therefore, the Capital Ambition Board agreed that children and families should be our strategic area of focus to identify new and innovative solutions to not only help the sector but more importantly to support better outcomes for Londoners.

Why children and families?

- **Potential for significant impact** on the outcomes for children and families, the solutions we develop provide the opportunity to improve future outcomes. There are currently 4.1 million children in poverty in the UK¹, improving the lives of children and families will act as a catalyst for change, bringing lasting improvements to society.

- **Opportune timing** as in recent years the increasing demand on adult social care has been more of a priority, specifically on the political agenda. However, this is beginning to change as a consequence of prolonged underfunding of children’s services resulting in a greater focus from central government and local politicians, creating the momentum to affect the required change.

- **Collaboration and partnership working** are now recognised as being essential to deliver the change needed to drive the necessary improvements.

Why London Ventures?

- **Access and Innovation**: We work by facilitating and enabling ideation and the development of solutions, combined with access to a range of innovative partners across the eco-system.

- **Proven pedigree**: Through the success of our first cycle on homelessness and temporary accommodation, we have a tried and tested approach to harnessing cross-sector expertise to develop innovative ideas that will deliver improved outcomes.

- **Our vision**: We are driven by our vision of supporting the fundamental shift in how public services are delivered in order to improve some of society’s biggest challenges.

¹ CPAG, Child poverty facts and figures, April 2018 Our approach What type of solutions are we looking for?

The programme will be sourcing solutions at different stages of development. These have been detailed below alongside our key considerations. The key considerations help us refine our solutions, ensuring the concept achieves the objectives of the programme.

Our targeted venture approach will bring in three different types of solutions at different stages of development. We believe a mixed portfolio will help bring local authorities a range of solutions and encourage disruption in a way that delivers better outcomes for Londoners and a deliverable solution for local authorities.

Our considerations include:

- **Market ready** We will bring the concept to market or help scale up within the market

- **Supported ideas** We will help develop a concept that may need shaping to target a new market

- **New concepts** We will incubate and nurture an embryonic idea to develop a solution

- **Will it deliver a commercial return for the provider?**

- **Does it support borough priorities?**

- **Is it scalable London wide?**

- **Does it encourage collaboration between the boroughs?**

- **Will it cut costs or raise revenue for the boroughs?**

- **Is it sustainable and replicable?** Section 2

Context Context What is happening at the national level?

Across England, local authorities are under enormous strain with the combined pressure of **budget cuts alongside increasing demand**. Operating within this environment is having a major impact on outcomes for children and their families. Ofsted have identified a number of **performance challenges** faced by local authorities and as of December 2017, 26% of the 74 children’s services investigated were rated as **inadequate**¹, which outnumbered the number of local authorities rated as good.

Local authorities have been caught in the perfect storm…

**Reduced Budgets**

- Central government funding for children’s services **reduced from £10bn in 2010-11 to £7.6bn in 2015-16**, a reduction of £2.4bn.²
- The impact of reduced budgets is having a noticeable impact, one such example being the **closure of 365 children’s centres and 603 youth centres since 2012**. Such services have a particular focus on prevention and early intervention.³

**Increasing Demand**

- Between 2010 and 2017 there was a **13% increase** in the number of children in care, **31% increase** in the number of children subject to a child protection plan and **108% increase** in referrals to children’s social care services.²
- Between January 2011 and January 2016, the number of pupils educated in **dedicated SEND places** in London **rose 23 per cent** from 18,880 to 23,127, **compared to a 10 per cent growth** rate in the rest of England.⁴
- **Overspend on children’s services has increased 400%** from 2014-2018, due to **increased demand** on services.⁵

…and the future trajectory is worsening

Local authorities have been **struggling to balance spending and funding**, and this situation is only likely to get worse with further budget cuts planned and predicted.

As a result, services are being forced to adopt ‘**firefighting**’ tactics to tackle short term issues to ensure they are meeting their statutory requirements.

“There is a growing financial crisis in children’s social care, with councils facing a **£2 billion funding gap** for children’s services in just three years’ time… The reality is that services for the care and protection of vulnerable children are now, in many areas, being pushed to breaking point.”

- Cllr Richard Watts, Chair of the LGA’s Children and Young People Board 9th August 2017⁵

______________________________________________________________________

¹ Ofsted, Children’s Social Care Data in England: Main Findings, August 2017 ² Children’s Society, Turning the Tide report: Key findings, November 2017 ³ Guardian, Children’s services cut, August 2017 ⁴ London Councils, Do the Math, 2016 ⁵ Local Government Association, Children’s social care at breaking point, August 2017 Context What does the London landscape look like?

Though a national issue, the challenge in London is particularly acute due to a number of compounding factors outlined below.

**Highest rate of child poverty in the UK**

700,000, or 37%, of all children in London are living in relative poverty after taking housing costs into account.¹

**Increase in children identified as SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disability)**

Between 2016-17, the number of London pupils with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP’s), grew by 4.2%, around three times the growth rate for the general pupil population.²

**London has a very transient population**

Additional challenges are faced by local authorities with a population turnover of 17% in Central London Boroughs.³

**Increase in Gang and Youth violence**

There has been a significant increase in gang violence across the capital and in the first four months of 2018 alone, 50 people were murdered, the majority under 18.⁴

**Significant overspend on budgets**

In 2015/16, 73% of local authorities in London recorded an overspend on their Looked after Children (LAC) budget.⁵

______________________________________________________________________

¹ CPAG, Child poverty in London - key facts, 2018 ² London Councils, School Funding Update, September 2017 ³ World Population Review, London Population, June 2018 ⁴ Independent, London Violence, April 2018 ⁵ Grant Thornton, Spend on Children’s Social Services, April 2017 ⁶ Guardian, London population growth rate twice that of UK, October 2016 ⁷ NAO, A short guide to local authorities, October 2017 ⁸ LGC Plus, Children’s Social Care Services overspends adult services, October 2017 Context What are the statutory obligations for local authorities?

All 152 local authorities in England are governed through statutes, which set out the legal requirements within which they must act. Local authorities therefore have principal responsibility to ensure the safeguarding and promotion of welfare for all children in their area. Below, we have highlighted some of the key statutes that guide the delivery of services for children and families.

Children and Social Work Act (2017) The Act includes a wide range of provisions relating to the support of looked after children and care leavers; the welfare and safeguarding of children and regulation regarding the social work profession. It clarifies the rights and services young people in care can expect from councils.

Key principles: • Providing extra support in schools for looked after children • Requiring councils to provide personal advisors to all care leavers up to the age of 25 • Strengthening local multi-agency coordination in safeguarding cases • Improving national arrangements for the analysis of serious incidents

Children and Families Act (2014) The Act aims to guarantee that all children and their families are able to access the right support and provision to meet their needs. The Act includes a Code of Practice for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

Key principles: • Encourages ‘fostering for adoption’ allowing approved adopters to foster children much faster • 26 week limit for courts to decide whether or not a child should be taken into care • Arrangements allowing children in care to stay with foster families until the age of 21 years • Encouragement of inter-agency working across education, health and care - health services and local authorities are required to jointly commission and plan services

SEN Code of practice (2014) – Part 3 of the Children and Families Act This code of practice, focuses on enabling participation of young people and their families in the decision making about their development.

Key principles: • Local authorities must consider the views, wishes and feelings of the child, young person and their parents • Child-centric approach - child and parents involved in the decision • Provision of information and support required to be involved in decision making • Behavioural difficulties should not automatically lead to pupils being identified as having SEN and extends the definition of young people up to the age of 25

## Context

### Who are the key players in the ecosystem?

Though Local Authorities carry the statutory responsibility, there a number of other **key players** as detailed below:

| Local Authorities and Children’s Trusts | Schools | Health | |----------------------------------------|---------|--------| | • Local authorities act as the key connection between government and residents | • Every staff member of a school has a statutory duty under “Keeping Children Safe in Education” to put the best interests of the child first | • Acts as a key agency in early years, through the use of midwives, health visitors and GP check-ups | | • They have a legal duty to follow up any complaints or concerns about child abuse, and provide support to a young person. They also play a critical role in running and maintaining children’s services, the key agent for interventions with young people | • Each school has a designated safeguarding lead, who communicates and liaises with local authorities on the safeguarding of their pupils | • A key identifier of possible abuse or health issues (mental/physical), whilst also offering support children with SEND | | • DCS Networks provide strategic leadership, promoting and improving the work LA’s do to offer all children and young people the best start in life | • Schools should create safe environments for children through robust safeguarding practices | • Safeguarding duties are within the NHS’s scope of responsibility, local trusts must ensure arrangements are in place that reflect the importance and promotion of child welfare |

### Central Government

| • The government works to protect children and support the professionals who care for them and their families | • The police have a legal duty to follow up any complaint or concern expressed about child abuse, report their concerns to the local authority and, in more serious cases or abuse, take a child away for 72 hours to keep the child safe | • Tailored support offered for particular needs through the tertiary sector, including enabling and supporting ‘respite breaks’ for carers of children with disabilities | | • The Department for Education have recently carried out work in the social care space through their innovation programme | • Police play an important role in supporting victims of sexual abuse (CSE) and tackling youth violence, whilst certain forces also support unaccompanied asylum seekers (UASC) | • Charities that focus on children/families work in a wide range of areas: from social services to employment and training; from education and recreation to housing | | • The Home Office also works closely on issues such as UASC and youth violence | | | | • Role of these departments is to create and implement policy and to provide statutory oversight for local authorities | | | Context How does the ecosystem work?

The diagram below starts to map out the complex landscape and inter-dependencies for delivering services to children and families, which involves multiple organisations across central and local government, private and the third sector. The list of organisations is not exhaustive.

Policy

Department for Education (DfE)

- Sets policy and provides oversight
- Provides a proportion of the funding
- Responsible for holding councils to account for performance in delivering children’s services

Home Office

- Works closely on issues such as gangs
- Sets policy and provides oversight

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)

- Administers Troubled Families Programme
- Geared towards reducing demand and dependency of complex families on costly public services

Quality Assurance & Accountability

Ofsted

- Inspects and regulates residential homes, fostering agencies and schools
- Inspects children’s services provided by local authorities on behalf of the government

Local Safeguarding Children Boards

- Coordinates local work to safeguard and promote the welfare of children

Local Authorities

- Responsible for meeting statutory duties
- Assess risk, put in place appropriate safeguarding measures
- Coordinate access to fostering services and residential care
- Contribute additional funding from other sources, e.g. council tax receipts
- Trusts also run services but Directors of Children’s Services is ultimately accountable
- Run children in care councils to get the children’s opinions on the service they receive

Service Providers

Private and third-sector providers

- Provides services such as fostering, residential care, SEND support etc.

Public Sector Providers

- E.g. Health, Education and Police

End Users

Children and Families Context What are some of the existing children and families initiatives?

Below we have highlighted some of the key centres of excellence and bodies that are developing or supporting unique or innovative solutions for children and families. This list is not exhaustive but provides a snapshot across the children’s services space.

**Nesta**

NESTA is a global innovation foundation, focused on supporting the creation of new ideas to tackle big challenges.

**Focus:**

- Developing policy and researching new thought leadership to develop the current model for public services
- Delivering programme management through support and funding to innovate ideas in this space
- Currently developing the What Works Centre for children’s social care – this will act as a hub for best-practice in the child social care space

**Department for Education**

In partnership with Spring Consortium, the 2014 Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme aims to improve outcomes for children who are supported by the social care system.

**Focus:**

- Enabling innovative ways to support vulnerable children
- Driving better value across children’s social care
- Creating stronger incentive mechanisms for innovation
- Improving life chances for Children receiving help
- Through a “partners in practice programme,” they are building partnerships between local and central government to improve the system

**Local Government Association**

The local government association represent the national voice of local government and work with councils to support, promote and improve local government.

**Focus:**

- Support councils in helping the children, young people and families in their areas achieve the best possible outcomes
- Support political leadership in children’s services
- Principal advisers identify good and innovative practice, which is fed back into the LGA to inform the wider improvement offer to the sector
- Undertake policy development and lobbying work

**Early Intervention Foundation**

An independent charity and What Works Centre for early intervention, which champions and supports the use of effective early intervention for children with signals of risk.

**Focus:**

- Creates publications, resources, guidebooks, and training programs for early intervention, demonstrating and enabling best practice
- Focuses on issues such as, but not limited to; gang involvement and youth violence, domestic violence and abuse, the cost of early vs late intervention
- Funded by the Department of Education, Department for Work and Pensions, Department of Health, Home Office and MHCLG to support their initiatives Section 3

Understanding the problem Understanding the problem What are the root causes of the challenges for children and families?

Often there is no single root cause or issue acting as the sole factor for children and families requiring support from public services - instead there are a number of themes, within which sit a number of inter-related root causes. A combination of these risk factors increases the chances a child will require an intervention from the local authority. Traditionally poor outcomes have largely been assumed to be due to the actions of parents, however they too may also lack the support networks, education etc. required to successfully raise a child and as such the landscape becomes much more complex.

### Structural Factors

- **Poverty**

  - Stagnant incomes
  - Higher cost of living
  - Zero-hour contracts
  - Debts or arrears

- **Welfare reform**

  - Universal Credit
  - Bedroom tax
  - Two Child Tax Credits Limit

- **Housing shortage**

  - Rising costs of private rent
  - Increased evictions
  - Poor quality housing

### Education, Employment and Skills

- **Unemployment**

  - Lack of disposable income
  - Lack of opportunity for learning support
  - Lack of access to educational materials
  - Lack of appropriate training/education to enter employment

- **Support Networks**

  - Lack of role model figure
  - Abusive parents (physically, mentally, sexually)
  - Absentee parents
  - Lack of support for educational opportunities

### Health and Wellbeing

- **Poor mental health**

  - Family history/ genetic disposition
  - Trauma
  - Abusive relationships

- **Poor physical health**

  - Malnutrition
  - Poor physical environment e.g. damp conditions
  - Physical abuse
  - Genetic disposition

- **Dependency on drugs or alcohol**

  - Genetic disposition
  - Family or Friends influence/Peer pressure
  - Coping mechanism

### Relationship breakdown and domestic violence

- **Family breakdown**

  - Emotional trauma
  - Absentee parents
  - Abuse and neglect

- **Domestic violence**

  - Poverty
  - Substance misuse
  - Trauma Understanding the problem What are our areas of focus?

Based on our research and engagement with local authorities and charities, there are five areas within children and families, that have been consistently referred to as particularly challenging for the sector. Early help is the umbrella theme due to the efficacy of interventions at this stage having a significant impact on the level of demand in our other focus areas.

1 Early help There has been a chronic shortage in investment in early help, which has been exacerbated by a prolonged period of austerity, leading to a significant increase in costly interventions at a later stage. In 2016, it was reported that 73% of children’s services budgets in England was spent on late intervention.1

2 Looked After Children The growing numbers of children and young people requiring support has put significant pressure on local authorities who are struggling to find appropriate care, particularly ‘in borough’. The latest national figures suggest that 90 children and young people are entering the care system each day.2

3 Gang and youth violence There have been considerable increases in gang and youth violence, especially knife crime related activity, over the past three years. An estimated 20% of the most serious violent crimes are reported to be committed by those under the age of 18.3

4 Special Education Needs and Disability The number of children requiring SEND support in London is increasing, and of these cases, a higher proportion are exhibiting complex needs. In 2016, it was reported c.205,000 children in London were receiving some degree of special education support, representing 14.5% of all students.4

5 Care leavers Nationally, around 11,000 young people leave care to move into independence or semi-independence aged 16, 17 or 18 each year. This transition is often described as a cliff-edge. The poor transition to adulthood has wide ranging social and economic implications for both the individual and the public sector.5

______________________________________________________________________

1 Action for Children, We have to turn the tide when it comes to early intervention, November 2017 2 Independent, Record number of children in care as social services reach ‘tipping point’, October 2017 3 NAO, The Nature of Violent Crime in England and Wales, March 2017 4 The London Assembly, Special needs education in London, December 2017 5 Become Charity, Care – The Facts, 2018 Early help Understanding the problem Behind the issue: Early help

Summary

Early help can be defined as “providing support as soon as a problem emerges, at any point in a child’s life, from the foundation years through to the teenage years.” (Working Together, 2013) Interventions can either be targeted at children deemed to be at higher risk of disadvantage, or can be universal in scope. There are a number of reasons why early intervention is important.

Societal Factors: • Social problems can be more effectively addressed if dealt with early in a child’s life – later, reactive interventions are seen as less effective at combatting social issues such as, but not limited to; unemployment, mental health, crime and health • Problems that begin in early years can be caused by a range of factors, for example direct neglect or mistreatment of the child or by more indirect factors such as poverty or parental actions

Economic Factors: • Advocates cite the economic advantages of early intervention policies and programmes leading to cost savings for the public sector • Early intervention activities are widely believed to require significantly less cost than later, reactive interventions

The First 1001 Days APPG, using methodologies from Australian and American studies, estimate that the cost of non-intervention in child maltreatment cases costs the UK economy £15 billion per year.²

Key Facts

• Analysis by Action for Children, The Children’s Society and the National Children’s Bureau outlined reductions to funding for children’s services. Their latest figures found allocation for such services nationally fell 24% from £10bn to £7.6bn in 2015. A £2bn shortfall is expected in 2020.³

• Councils are increasingly being forced to spend the majority of funding intervening with cases at a stage when the problems have reached crisis point – also the point by which they are required to act by law.

• In 2015/16, late intervention represented 73% of local authority spending on children’s services, up from 58% recorded in 2010/11. In comparison spend on early intervention now represents 26% of local authority spend, down from 36% in 2010/11.⁴

• As seen below, there is a clear decline in early intervention spend, correlating with an increase in late intervention spending.⁴

| Financial Year | Early (mn) | Late (mn) | |----------------|-----------|-----------| | 2010/11 | £3,608 | £5,755 | | 2011/12 | £3,049 | £5,889 | | 2012/13 | £2,958 | £5,889 | | 2013/14 | £2,684 | £5,931 | | 2014/15 | £2,434 | £5,961 | | 2015/16 | £2,163 | £6,153 |

¹ HM Government, Working together to safeguard Children, March 2015 ² Parliament, Early Intervention, June 2017 ³ Guardian, Children’s Services at Risk as Councils Raid School Reserves, February 2018 ⁴ Action for Children, We have to turn the tide when it comes to early intervention, November 2017 Understanding the problem Behind the issue: Early help

Key Issues The impact of a lack of investment in early help can be felt in a number of ways. High level impacts include:

The lack of funding is having a direct impact on capacity within local authorities. Since 2010, DfE Data shows that 508 children’s centres closed across England1 – these centres typically provided early intervention services. Of those that remained open, many are becoming more targeted, losing various early help services in the process. More than 100 of these centres were based in London.2

Levels of demand on the child protection and care systems are increasing. In 2017, a record 90 young people a day were entering the care system.3 This is alongside a rise in demand for more complex SEND places.

‘Children’s services have been protected from the worst of cuts, but ongoing austerity will mean we have to cut early help and focus only on statutory child protection, not a good place to be for future financial balance and a terrible place to be for families.’

(Director of Children’s Services, 2015)4

Legislation Early intervention as a policy approach has become increasingly championed by recent governments across party lines. This has come as a result of an increased understanding in its importance. Below are a number of policies related to the topic that the government has already put in place. The sheer number of schemes in place highlights its importance in the national agenda.

Health • Healthy Child Programme • Health Visitors • Family Nurse Partnership • Healthy Start • Perinatal mental health

Education • Early education entitlement • Early Years Foundation Stage • Early Years Pupil Premium • Early Intervention Grant

Social Development • Sure Start Children’s Centres • Parenting Classes • Baby boxes (Scotland)

Benefits and Financial Assistance • Sure Start Maternity Grant

______________________________________________________________________

1 Barnardos, Early Years Services, December 2017 2 Guardian, Public Sector Cuts, February 2018 3 Independent, UK Social Care Crisis, October 2017 4 Children’s society, Cuts that cost: Trends in funding for early intervention services, 2015 Looked After Children Understanding the problem Behind the issue: Looked After Children

Summary The number of looked after children has reached a record high, with the latest figures from 2017 reporting 90 young people entering the care system each day. The increasing demand has put huge financial pressures on local authorities, who are facing vastly increasing costs of placing these young people into appropriate care.

60% Neglect 40% Other

60% of young people are to said to enter care due to neglect by their parents/guardians. Unfortunately however, this is not the only reason and often children enter care due to a combination of factors. Other reasons include:

- Incarceration of parents
- Truancy
- Death of parents

These children are often prone to significantly worse outcomes compared to those who grew up at home. For example, those in care are x4 more likely than peers to have mental health difficulty.

Key Facts

- In the year ending 31 March 2015, a total of 69,540 children were looked after by local authorities in England, a rate of 60 per 10,000 children under 18 years. The absolute number of children looked after has increased by 6% since 2011 (65,510).
- Children aged between 10 and 15 years represent the majority of the looked after population (38%), while children under one year are in a minority (5% of the looked after population). The looked after population includes more boys than girls (55% compared with 45%).
- The number of children placed by Independent Foster Agencies (IFA) has risen by 5%. This is compared to a 1% increase by local authorities.
- There has been a rise in the number of looked after children with Special Educational Needs or Disability (SEND) and hence increased demand for specialist carers. These young people tend to require placements by IFA’s.
- The majority of looked after children (75%) are in foster care placements. The number of children looked after in foster placements has increased by 9% since 2010 (from 46,890 to 51,340). Over the same period there has been a 12% decrease in the number of looked after children placed with parents (3,990 in 2011 compared with 3,510 in 2015).

1 Independent, UK Social Care Crisis, October 2017 2 Ofsted, Children in Care, 2018 3 Parliament, Early Intervention, June 2017 4 Ofsted, Fostering in England, February 2017 Understanding the problem Behind the issue: Looked After Children

Key Issues Below we have outlined the key issues associated with looked after children. Increased costs are both economic and social, for both local authorities and the child.

- An estimated **5900 further foster families need to be recruited** across England in the next 12 months. Foster recruitment is increasingly difficult for local authorities.¹
- **66% of children’s homes are privately run** nationally, which is often costly for local authorities and does not always deliver improved outcomes for the child.²
- **A shortage in appropriate spaces in residential homes**, particularly in London, coupled with an increased reliance on agency workers is leading to increased costs. The average UK Council spent £1.2m on agency workers in children’s services.³
- The **complexity of children’s needs in care services is steadily increasing** – linked to the rise in SEND support needs across London and the rest of the UK, with a greater reliance on IFA’s to identify specialist carers.⁴

Legislation Below we have highlighted the key areas of legislation, which place duties on local authorities. The landscape is complex and vast and includes statutory guidance.

- **Children Act 1989 (amended 2004)** Sets out the duties, powers and responsibilities local authorities hold in respect of their looked after children and care leavers

- **Children (Leaving Care) 2000** Sets out duties local authorities have to support young people leaving care from 16 to 21 years of age

- **Adoption and Children Act 2002** Updated legal framework for domestic and inter-country adoption, places duty on LA to maintain an adoption service

- **Children and Adoption Act 2006** Gives court more flexible powers to facilitate child contact and enforce contact orders when separated parents are in dispute

- **Children and Young Persons Act 2014** Encourages fostering for adoption. Introduces 26 week time limit for the courts to decide whether or not a child should be taken into care. Introduces ‘staying put’ arrangements which allows children to stay in foster care until the age of 21

- **The Children Homes (England) Regulations 2015 (amended 2018)** Sets out duties for those providing residential children’s homes for children

______________________________________________________________________

¹ The Fostering Network, 2018 ² Guardian, Privatising Children’s Social Services, December 2016 ³ Community Care, Spending on Agency Workers, November 2014 ⁴ Guardian, Spending on Agency Workers, January 2018 Gang and youth violence Understanding the problem Behind the issue: Gang and youth violence

Summary Cases of young people being violently injured or killed in London – often by other young people – is an increasing occurrence on the streets of London. The number of victims of serious youth violence has been rising over the past four years. This is now at the forefront of policy makers’ conversations. The London Crime Reduction Board (LCRB), chaired by the Mayor of London, identified tackling gangs as one of the four key priorities for partnership action.¹

Gang and Youth Violence is a pan-London Issue The 224 gangs identified by Met Police are geographically spread across London.¹ The impact of gang crime, as measured by the level of violence, is reducing in London, but the scope and complexity of the gang problem remains, and the majority of boroughs are affected by it. The movement of gang members around London and outside of the city causes additional challenges to agencies.

“Getting back to being ‘tough on the causes of crime’ will require a massive investment in the services that have been neglected for too long, tragically letting our young people down.”² Sadiq Kahn, January 2018

Key Facts 1/3 Met Police arrestees that received an outcome were youths¹ Offenders’ peak ages were 18/19 with 86% recorded as male¹ Youth reoffending rates are nearly double the adult cohort¹ 74% of victims of gang-violence had some criminal history at an average of 9 offences per individual¹ In 2017, the greatest proportion of youth offences were drug related¹ Londoners identified “tackling gangs” as a top 3 priority to improve safety in their neighbourhoods¹

Root Causes The root causes attributed to gang involvement and the consequential crime that occurs as a result of this association, is said to include¹:

- Lack of opportunity
- Domestic and child abuse
- Peer pressure
- Insufficient parental supervision
- Traumatic events
- Mental illness
- Social media
- Drug use

¹ Strategic Ambitions for London, Gang and Serious Youth Violence; Strategic Ambitions, June 2014 ² Independent, Rising Violent Crimes, January 2018 Understanding the problem Behind the issue: Gang and youth violence

Key Issues

In 2016, the Home Office published a refreshed approach to the policy relating to gang violence. A policy paper entitled ‘Ending gang violence and exploitation’ set out six priorities.¹

- **Tackle drug dealing outside of urban areas**, where vulnerable people are being exploited by gangs to sell drugs
- **Protect places where vulnerable and young people can be targeted** by gangs, such as residential children’s care homes
- **Promote early intervention** to prevent young people becoming involved in gangs
- **Safeguarding vulnerable women and girls** involved with gangs
- **Reducing violence and knife crime**
- **Promote alternatives to those at risk of gang involvement** through education and training

Legislation

- The launch of the Met Police **Trident Gang Command** in February 2012 was the start of a new coordinated enforcement effort that has taken many of the highest risk gang members, responsible for the most serious violence, off London’s streets.
- In May 2012, the Delivery Management Group of the London Crime Reduction Board (LCRB) commissioned the development of a pan-London partnership strategy for tackling gangs in London, which was published in December 2012. The partnership **brought together partners** for the first time to develop a shared strategy to tackle gang violence.
- In 2014, in partnership with each of London’s 32 boroughs, the Mayor’s Office for Police and Crime funded 25 gang projects through the **London Crime Prevention Fund** at a value of approximately £3m per year over four years.
- The Mayor of London has committed to spending £15m a year to fund education, sport and cultural activities for the capital’s most disadvantaged young people over a three year period from 2018.
- In April 2018 the Home Office published **The Serious Violence Strategy** that set out the government’s response to serious violence and recent increases in knife crime, gun crime and homicides.
- Action on the above strategy is centred on **four main themes**: tackling county lines and misuse of drugs; early intervention and prevention; supporting communities and local partnerships; law enforcement and the criminal justice response.

¹ Strategic Ambitions for London, Gang and Serious Youth Violence; Strategic Ambitions, June 2014 Special Educational Needs and Disability Understanding the problem Behind the issue: Special Educational Needs and Disability

Summary The number of children identified with complex needs has dramatically increased at a time that local authorities are increasingly finding it difficult to provide access to the required support. A report commissioned by the Council for Disabled Children and the True Colours Trust estimated that the number of recorded disabled children and younger people has increased by over 50% since 2004. The reasons for this dramatic increase include improved diagnosis as well as increased life expectancy for babies born with complex needs and congenital conditions such as cystic fibrosis.

A changing landscape The nature of SEND need has changed. Since 2011, the number of pupils in schools with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) has increased by over 50%, while the number of pupils with physical disabilities has decreased by a third.

The diagram to our right provides an overview of the type of needs reported in UK schools. This is broken down by those who receive SEND support and those on Education, Health & Care (EHC) Plans. We can see that ASD needs are particularly dominant.

The number of pupils with Statements or EHC Plans, requiring specialist provision to meet their needs, has risen by 22% since 2010 in London, and the complexity of these needs are increasing. This is putting a considerable strain on the education system due to the increased cost. Places for children with SEND costs an average of £69,055 per placement, three times as much as a mainstream school place.

Key Facts The London Assembly Education Panel pulled together a number of key facts in their investigation of the challenges to providing access to SEND provision in London’s growing school age population.

- In 2016, there were approximately 205,000 students with some degree of special education support in London, which represents 14.5% of all students.
- In a recent survey, 70% of school leaders raised concerns about budget cuts and 81% experienced diminished SEND support because of cuts to their local authority support.
- Between January 2011 and January 2016, the number of pupils educated in dedicated SEND places in London rose by 23% from 18,880 to 23,127, compared to a 10% growth rate in the rest of England.

______________________________________________________________________

1 Council for Disabled Children, Children with Complex Needs, February 2017 2 The London Assembly, Special Needs Education London, December 2017 3 DfE, Statement of SEN and EHC Plans, May 2017 Understanding the problem Behind the issue: Special Educational Needs and Disability

Key Issues Below we have highlighted the key issues faced by local authorities:

- Increasing demand matched with insufficient capacity and budgetary pressures. e.g. difficulty processing all EHC assessments
- High cost of transportation for pupils with SEND due to long distances to facilities
- Families lack support, leading to high numbers of SEND children ending up in care at a high cost to local authorities
- Mainstream schools are less willing to accept SEND pupils and those with the highest level of need are particularly difficult to place
- Increasing complexity of child’s needs requires more specialist treatment. e.g. Rise in ASD

Legislation The role of local authorities in the provision of SEND support is detailed extensively in the Children and Families Act 2014. The reform was described as the biggest change to child welfare legislation in 30 years and has an impact on all under the age of 25. The requirements are extensive, including:

Section 19 of the Act sets out the general principles that local authorities must have regard to when supporting disabled children and young people, and for those with SEN under Part 3 of the Act. Local authorities must pay particular attention to:

- the views, wishes and feelings of children and their parents, and young people;
- the importance of children and their families participating as fully as possible in decision-making and providing the information and support to enable them to do so; and
- supporting children and young people’s development and helping them to achieve the best possible educational and other outcomes

Section 22 of the Act places a duty on local authorities to identify all the disabled children and young people in their area, and all the children and young people their area who have or may have special educational needs. This is a proactive duty; it will mean that local authorities will need to put in place systems for gathering this information from educational institutions and other services.

1 TES, SEND Support Struggles, June 2017 2 London Councils, School Funding Update, October 2017 3 Guardian, People Give Up, September 2017 4 Independent, Failed by mainstream schools, December 2014 5 Department of Education, Children’s services: Spending and Delivery, July 2016 Care Leavers Understanding the problem Behind the issue: Care Leavers

Summary

“The system for supporting young people leaving foster or residential care in England to live successful independent lives is not working effectively”, according to the National Audit Office (NAO). This is despite the fact that there is a clear legal framework and an inspection regime in place. The numbers of care leavers in employment, education and training has deteriorated since 2007-08 (NAO).¹

According to the Guardian, those who have been in care between the ages of 10 and 17 are five times more likely to be convicted of a criminal offence or subject to a final warning. Children in care are also five times more likely to have been excluded from school.²

The above experiences have a knock-on effect on their transition to adulthood, often resulting in poorer life outcomes. Relative to their peers, young people leaving care tend to³:

• Have lower levels of educational attainment • Be unemployed • Live in unstable and poor quality housing or be homeless • Be young parents • Have mental health problems/drug addition • Be over-represented in prison

Addressing the poor life outcomes for those leaving care has been a longstanding problem with high costs of an unsuccessful transition. Care leavers are often not equipped with the appropriate skills necessary for a successful transition to independence.

Key Facts

The costs associated with care leavers not being able to move to independence successfully are high, to both care leavers and the public system.

The principal measure used by the NAO to assess outcomes is the number of care leavers not in education, employment or training (NEET). In 2013-14, 41% of 19 y/o leavers were NEET, this is in comparison to 15% of their age peers.⁴ According to NAO, the lifetime cost of this current cohort of care leavers that are NEET would be around £240m, £150m more than if they had the same NEET rate as their peers.⁴

The diagram below outlines the system in place for supporting care leavers, adapted from the Government’s Care Leaver Strategy (2013) alongside various other reports. This gives us a high-level understanding of the complexity of the key stakeholders and their inter-relationships.

______________________________________________________________________

¹ Family Law, System for supporting care leavers is not working, July 2015 ² Guardian, Only 6% of care leavers go to university. They deserve better chances, November 2017 ³ NCB, Supporting care leavers’ successful transitioning to independent living, August 2012 ⁴ National Audit Office, Care leavers’ transitions to adulthood, July 2015 Understanding the problem Behind the issue: Care Leavers

Key Issues

According to the government’s social inspection blog, the very best local authorities keep sight of care leavers’ needs at all times, providing the support in a well-planned, co-ordinated way.

The National Audit Office (NAO) interviewed a number of care leavers, combined these with Ofsted’s findings, and produced 5 particular issues as detailed below:

1. **Poor and late pathway planning** - often pathway planning is not user-friendly or outcome orientated and are also implemented too late and as such have minimal impact on outcomes

2. **Lack of personal documentation** - care leavers do not always receive their relevant documentation e.g. their passports or their health history

3. **Limited personal support** - care leavers often have inadequate or insufficient skills and understanding required for independent living, which is often a result of changes in professionals or simply high case loads

4. **Awareness of entitlement** – it is not always made clear to care leavers what support they are/aren’t entitled to as they move into independence

5. **Keeping in touch** – some local authorities are losing touch with a large number of their care leavers, which often means these young people no longer have access to the support they need

Government Legislation

All local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that eligible and relevant care leavers are placed in suitable accommodation when leaving care. DfE sets the overall framework for the provision of support, providing statutory guidance to local authorities.

- Legislation including the Children (Leaving Care) Act (2000) and the Children and Young Persons Act (2008) recognises the barriers faced by care leavers when applying to, and succeeding in, higher education, and sets out ways in which people leaving care can be supported.

- In 2013 the Government published a cross-departmental Care Leavers strategy which emphasised the importance of a long-term, sustained approach to supporting care leavers.

- The Children and Social Work Act 2017 set outs the corporate parenting principles for English local authorities and the requirement for them to publish the support they provide (the ‘local offer’) for care leavers.

In the Government’s Care Leaver Strategy, six key areas were identified as points of focus where they are looking for impacts to be made:

- Education
- Housing
- Employment
- Justice
- Health
- Financial and on-going support

______________________________________________________________________

1 National Audit Office, Care leaver’s transition to adulthood, July 2015 Experience of children and young people Experience of children and young people Early help

Name: Andrew Location: East London Borough Interviewer: Social Worker in Youth Offending Team

Between the ages of 11 and 13, 27 referrals were made to the Local Authority front door from his school, youth club and police.

No intervention was undertaken, however, the Local Authority did attempt to engage the family twice but consent was not given.

At his next school, he affiliated with children with poor attendance and low-level attainment. His behaviour soon became unmanageable.

His mother and school reached out to the local authority but the Early Help Team/Family Support workers were unable to successfully engage with the child and the case was closed.

Aged 14, Andrew committed 3 offences; attacked a child at his school, hit his teacher when they attempted to stop the fight, then ran away from the school and went missing for 7 hours. He was found by police after they received a call that a young male was throwing a brick at a phone booth.

Andrew was given a community resolution from the police and was permanently excluded from school.

6 months after the case closure, Andrew was involved in further offences and progressed through the criminal justice system.

At 15, he was sentenced to a Youth Offenders Institution.

Andrew wished he’d engaged with the Early Help team, but his main regret was leaving his school. He remembered that his mum was in a violent relationship and that he was witnessing a lot of domestic violence. This was never disclosed or identified by services and this eventually impacted on his behaviour at school.

He strongly felt that if he was supported to remain in education that his life could have been much different. He felt he was not given a chance and that his school and Early Help team gave up on him very quickly.

This section shows the journey of a child through the lens of the child. Social Workers, known to the child and family/carers carried out this task during a professional visit. Consent was provided by the child and parent/carer. All participants and the respective local authorities chose to remain anonymous. Experience of children and young people Looked After Children

Name: Aamaya & Bhashkar Location: South London Borough Interviewer: Social Worker – Children Looked After Team

At the ages of 11 and 7 years old respectively, Aamaya and her brother Bhashkar were adopted.

The adoptive parents were very excited and despite it being a lengthy process, each felt it was worth it.

Aged 13, Aamaya was unhappy at home with her adoptive parents and this started to cause problems at school. A Social Worker was involved and Aamaya requested she had some respite after she and her adoptive mum had a big row, which resulted in Aamaya being slapped.

The Social Worker was concerned that the placement was at risk of breaking down and an intervention was needed.

Aamaya went into a short term residential placement, her brother aged 9 remained with their adoptive parents.

Aamaya had to change schools. She soon began smoking marijuana and drinking. Her behaviour declined and she started to ‘act out’ against her support workers at the children’s home and cause damage to the property.

At 14, Aamaya was known to Police and quickly progressed through the criminal justice system. Bhashkar and their adoptive parents rarely visited.

At 17, Aamaya left the children’s home and was pregnant 2 months later.

Aamaya was very open about her experience and was angry with the Social Worker involved leading to the adoption. She had spent her time during pregnancy reflecting on her experience and said she realised her adoptive parents only ever wanted a boy and frequently told her this. Aamaya had 8 different Social Workers in 6 years. She said she often felt depressed and was never referred to mental health professionals. She and her brother were once very close but they became distant once she moved into residential care. Aamaya said her baby is her family now.

This section shows the journey of a child through the lens of the child. Social Workers, known to the child and family/carers carried out this task during a professional visit. Consent was provided by the child and parent/carer. All participants and the respective local authorities chose to remain anonymous. Experience of children and young people Special Education Needs and Disability

Name: Grace Location: North East London Borough Interviewer: SEND Officer, SEND Team

At primary school, different strategies and interventions had been tried to support Grace’s learning and behaviour. Grace was not at the expected level of attainment for her age (11).

Her parents frequently attended multi-agency meetings at the primary school.

Aged 11, in secondary school Grace was assessed by the school’s Special Educational Needs Coordinator as having a high level of social, emotional and mental health difficulties. A SEND officer from LA was involved.

Grace was more than 2 years below the expected standards for her age. She was starting to isolate herself from other children and her parents were concerned.

Aged 12, Grace was given an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) to support her progress. This was extremely positive as it meant there was a number of services involved to support her needs.

Grace had a dedicated support assistant during lesson time, which helped with her learning and concentration.

Aged 13, Grace had a small group of friends and was much happier in school and at home.

She achieved 4 GCSE’s and was able to move onto college.

Grace, aged 17 and at college was excited about sharing her story. Grace said she felt very lucky to have a SENCO at her school who took the time to really understand her. She said she used to be upset at home and in school and didn’t want to attend. She thought she was stupid and nobody liked her because she was different.

She recalled that she cried when she got her GCSE results and her mum did too.

Grace’s parents were thrilled with their daughter’s achievements but hoped that other children would be identified sooner.

This section shows the journey of a child through the lens of the child. Social Workers, known to the child and family/carers carried out this task during a professional visit. Consent was provided by the child and parent/carer. All participants and the respective local authorities chose to remain anonymous. Experience of children and young people Gang and youth violence

Name: Tyler Location: South East London Borough Interviewer: Social Worker, Gangs Unit part of Community Safety Team

At 7 years of age, Tyler was associating with children much older than himself. He was disruptive at home and school. Tyler’s parent said the school was constantly calling her in as he was always getting into fights and going missing/leaving the school.

Aged 10, Children’s Services had been involved for 3 years on and off. Tyler was assessed as his school and social worker suspected he was being exploited by criminality and was known to be associated with known gang members.

Tyler had not been charged with any offences, but he was known by Police and the Youth Crime prevention team were involved.

Aged 12, Tyler had been permanently excluded from two schools and was in a Pupil Referral Unit. His attendance was at 37% and his mother was not able to manage his behaviour. Children’s Services were concerned that Tyler was at risk of significant harm through exploitation. However, recognised his mother was fully engaged and compliant with all strategies and interventions.

Aged 14, Tyler refused to engage with any service and was regularly being arrested. He was regarded as a gang member.

Tyler stamped on the head of a rival gang member causing brain damage.

At the time Tyler was interviewed by his Social Worker, he was 15 and in a Youth Offending Institution. He declared that he did not regret his actions as the person he injured was carrying a knife and he was convinced he would have used it on him.

He strongly felt that he was never coerced or influenced, however he identified that he was instructed to carry out ‘tasks’ when he started making friends with the older children in his neighbourhood. His Social Worker is convinced that more should have been done when services first identified his affiliation with gang members.

This section shows the journey of a child through the lens of the child. Social Workers, known to the child and family/carers carried out this task during a professional visit. Consent was provided by the child and parent/carer. All participants and the respective local authorities chose to remain anonymous. Experience of children and young people Care Leavers

Name: Stacy Location: West London Borough Interviewer: Personal Advisor – Leaving Care Team

Stacy had been in residential care since she was 12 years of age.

Her mum was a prolific heroin user and known to Police. Stacy was known to Children’s Services since she was 6 years old. She was often left in the care of her grandmother until she passed.

At 17, Stacy was in college and studying at GCSE level but was struggling with the courses. Records indicate that Stacy felt anxious about moving into independent living and this was impacting on her education.

Stacy said she had grown attached to the residential staff and was worried about being on her own.

At 19, Stacy was unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Stacy was very fragile during the interview and the Personal Advisor (PA) was concerned this would upset her and set her back.

Instead, the PA used a previous feedback session where Stacy had given her views of her experience. Stacy had said she felt under prepared for independent living and felt the leaving care team got involved too late. The Social Worker had noted at the time that Stacy was vulnerable and recommended that semi-supported living should be considered. Stacy now struggles with her mental health and is on anti-depressants. She has no qualifications.

Aged 16, she was informed that a plan would be in place to support her into independent living for when she was 17 years of age. She said during that time three different Social Workers were involved and each time she had to go over the same information.

Stacy remembers feeling really scared and excited about living on her own. She said she was frustrated with the Social Workers and they never really listened to her.

4 months after leaving care, residential staff had made 17 calls to the leaving care team. Stacy often wanted to have dinner with them and stay over. Section 5

Problem statements Problem Statements How have we evolved the problems we will be focusing on?

We initially undertook desk-based research to understand the key issues facing children and families in London, focusing on the key data points and statistics associated with this area.

Based on this research, we identified five areas of focus, upon which we looked to develop our understanding.

We met with a broad range of key stakeholders, including local authorities, central government, charities, and private organisations, to dive deeper into the problem areas.

In order to think differently about the problems, we were encouraged to think ‘horizontally’ rather than ‘vertically’ due to the inter-related nature of many of the issues.

Reflecting on the feedback, we developed a series of cross-cutting themes upon which to identify and develop our potential solutions.

This lateral approach ensures that the innovative solutions we create work to address a number of the key challenges facing children and families in London. These themes are outlined on the next page. Problem Statements What are the problem statements we have identified?

Below we have highlighted our five cross-cutting themes and the six identified problem statements as agreed by our challenge panel. We have identified six problem statements to capture the key challenges whilst providing a level of focus on which to ideate solutions.

| Problem Area | Cross-cutting theme | Early Help | Looked After Children | Special Educational Needs and Disability | Gang and Youth Violence | Care Leavers | |--------------|----------------------|------------|-----------------------|------------------------------------------|-------------------------|-------------| | Community Mobilisation | How can we utilise the strengths and skills within our community? | Community support e.g. assets, voluntary groups, interventions, is not always mobilised effectively to support children and families locally, which results in local authorities having to respond to a greater number of referrals at all threshold levels. | | | | | | Behavioural and Social Support | How could wider quality of life support for vulnerable children reduce their dependency on LA support? | Vulnerable children are often lacking the required social skills such as the ability to communicate clearly and calmly, or demonstrating consideration for the feelings and interests of their peers, to enable them to live fully and independently. | | | | | | Evidence and intelligent data use | How do we ensure the significant data held in the public sector is used more effectively to inform the commissioning and service delivery? | Limited data sharing means local authorities and partners do not usually have a holistic view of the needs of children and their families to enable them to provide effective support. | | | | | | Collaboration across local authorities and agencies | How should local authorities and agencies work together to improve outcomes? | Local authorities spend a significant amount of time triaging inappropriate new referrals, often from partner organisations who do not always understand the statutory intervention thresholds or are unable to signpost families to appropriate services directly. | | | | | | Family and parental support | How will a more holistic approach to supporting vulnerable children drive better experience? | Vulnerable families are not being provided adequate support at an early stage, leading to increased internal and external pressures on that family, resulting in more acute and specialised support being required from the local authority. | | | | Section 6

Engagement Engagement Who have we met?

To date, we have met with a range of different organisations from across sectors to build our understanding of the key issues faced by children and families in London, a snapshot of which can be found below: Engagement How have we engaged the most strategic subject matter experts?

Challenge Panel To guide our thinking, we have brought together a challenge panel to act as a ‘critical friend’ and test our thinking. This panel is comprised of Chief Executives, Directors of Children’s Services and Finance Directors from local authorities, private organisations and the third sector.

Session 1 – 18th May 2018 The first meeting was an engaging and insightful discussion around the identified problem areas and diving into the more specific issues within each. The breadth of knowledge and experiences of the group challenged our thinking and provided insights to feed directly into the development of our problem statements.

Session 2 – 15th June 2018 The second meeting of our challenge panel was designed to get the group to think about the problem statements that were developed based on feedback from the first session. In this session, we validated the ‘problem statements’ to be used as we move into our ‘find the solution’ stage. Engagement How are we leveraging cross-sector insight to develop our solutions?

Children and Families Hackathon Our hackathon, held on Thursday 21st June 2018, was a high energy, outcome orientated event attended by 60 participants, including representatives from 13 London local authorities, central government, social enterprises, charities and innovators. Following an insightful opening talk from guest speaker Emmanuel Akpan-Inwang (Lighthouse), participants ideated solutions to some of the major challenges facing children and families in London, drawing on a broad range of experiences and backgrounds.

Through the solution hackathon, we have: • Brought together a range of stakeholders to share their ideas and experiences • Developed a number of innovative solutions using ‘out of the box thinking’ • Ideated solutions that are outcome focused, deliverable, scalable and sustainable • Identified individuals from different sectors to support the development of solutions Section 7

Next steps Next steps How will we identify the innovative solutions to build and launch?

The children and families hackathon on the 21st June 2018 marked the start of our ‘find the solution’ stage, the next step in our targeted ventures cycle 2 journey. Our next focus is on building upon our long list of solutions, through further engagements, events and sessions, as well as through our interactive idea generation platform: https://londonventures.hunchbuzz.com/challenges

Throughout, we will need to ensure the solutions generated are aligned with our concept criteria:

- **Tackle a strategic challenge** – is the solution addressing a key problem for the sector?
- **Pan-London** – will the solution encourage collaboration across local authorities?
- **Replicable** – is the solution appropriate for multiple local authorities?
- **Scalable** – is there scope to develop the solution and its applicability?
- **Commercial** – is there an opportunity to commercialise the idea to ensure its long-term sustainability?

An overview of the key considerations during our ‘find the solution’ stage can be found on the next page. Next steps What are the key considerations when incubating our solutions?

To ensure that we develop the most effective solutions through our programme, our work will be underpinned by some key considerations. Outlined below, they are based on the Department of Education’s ‘Seven Features of Practice’. They will be used as a collection of principles to guide best practice and optimise the impact of the solutions we curate.

The voice of the child should be at the centre

• By putting the child at the heart of our work, we ensure that we have a full understanding of the challenges they face. • By being cognisant of the need to consider the child’s perspective, we can develop solutions that work for those most affected. This will be applied by working with organisations, such as Spiral, who will invite young people to our solution hackathon.

Interventions should take a family focused approach

• Looking at problems from a family perspective helps us understand the root cause of issues and provide effective improvement. • Family-centred services are based upon the belief that the best place for children to grow up is in a family and the most effective way to ensure children’s safety, permanency, and well-being is to provide services that engage, involve, strengthen, and support families.

Work with families should take a strength based practice approach

• A strength based framework of practice defines a set of values and theoretical principles that support all work with children and families. • The approach helps create a shared understanding of what good practice looks like, providing clear expectations and a consistent service. • It also supports children and families to feel empowered, moving away from a feeling of being told what to do.

Multi-agency working is essential to providing holistic support

• Ensuring that stakeholders work together produces better outcomes for the child. • The range of knowledge and skills that different parties can bring to the table improves decision making. Our solution ideation events, such as the hackathon, bring together stakeholders from across sectors to ensure a collaborative approach.